Talk:Mass graves of thousands of ISIL victims found, UN reports

Review of revision 4444417 [Not ready]

Revision 4444417 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Preliminary checks uncovered a significant number of moderate-length passages substantially the same as sources. Particularly noticeable in this regard were the first two sentences of the second paragraph, which were made up, substantially, of three passages from the CNN source. Note that substituting synonyms (besides the danger that the meaning isn't really preserved) does not avoid accusations of plagiary. There's some advice at WN:PILLARS#own and discussion at WN:Plagiarism. I noticed, looking this over, that Suki Nagra (who does not have a Wikipedia article) is not mentioned in any of the cited sources. This was very strange. I did find Suki Nagra mentioned in relation to this story in another source not cited here, and the mention of Suki Nagra in that source was providing just the right information to verify what was said here — and gave CNN credit for it, which made me wonder if it was in an earlier version of the CNN article. Or there might be some other explanation. At any rate, where did the information about Suki Nagra come from? Btw, when somebody says something specifically to a particular news org, rather than saying it publicly, we (like other news orgs) give credit for the exclusive by mentioning what news org it was said to. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4444417 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Preliminary checks uncovered a significant number of moderate-length passages substantially the same as sources. Particularly noticeable in this regard were the first two sentences of the second paragraph, which were made up, substantially, of three passages from the CNN source. Note that substituting synonyms (besides the danger that the meaning isn't really preserved) does not avoid accusations of plagiary. There's some advice at WN:PILLARS#own and discussion at WN:Plagiarism. I noticed, looking this over, that Suki Nagra (who does not have a Wikipedia article) is not mentioned in any of the cited sources. This was very strange. I did find Suki Nagra mentioned in relation to this story in another source not cited here, and the mention of Suki Nagra in that source was providing just the right information to verify what was said here — and gave CNN credit for it, which made me wonder if it was in an earlier version of the CNN article. Or there might be some other explanation. At any rate, where did the information about Suki Nagra come from? Btw, when somebody says something specifically to a particular news org, rather than saying it publicly, we (like other news orgs) give credit for the exclusive by mentioning what news org it was said to. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

@Pi zero: please read the CNN source again. I just double-checked and Suki Nagra is indeed quoted there. Is it possible that the link somehow sends us to different versions of the article?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: Turns out, the web browser I usually use to access sources didn't show most of the content of the CNN article (because it wasn't allowing javascript to run; I do that deliberately because some of the more aggressive news sites exercise javascript so aggressively that that they can crash my browser, or even my laptop, rather like a malware site; I'll try whitelisting javascript for CNN, so I can keep using that browser). --Pi zero (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: I attempted to re-write the article more in my own words. I admit that the description of the victims—“women, children, and the elderly”—is still probably too similar to the source. Should I quote it instead? I feel the information is too important to the story to simply cut out, but I do not know any way else to describe them.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: We don't direct-quote a source unless it becomes part of the story (though we can quote someone who's legitimately part of the story based on a quote from them provided by a source). The particular phrase you're talking about occurs, with slightly variations, in all three sources, and my guess is that they're all using words from the UN report. So in that particular case it's probably not something to worry too much about — although sometimes when multiple sources use the same wording like that it's because they're all paying for the right to draw on material from some common wire service, and in that situation we'd particularly want to avoid that wording. --Pi zero (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Darkfrog24: for all the legwork. I think with my next article I will take more time to focus on format and word choice. I often feel I am rushing to get the story out for review, but am needlessly sacrificing quality. I will continue to work on that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

That is definitely a thing on Wikinews. Review is our bottleneck, our limiting reagent, and you should sacrifice some quality to get the article ready in time. What I do is get the draft good enough, I use the word "presentable," and then hit "review" and then if I think of any improvements later, I use the {{editing}} to add them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't altogether endorse that phrasing. Not so much quality sacrificed, rather priorities chosen — like having a limited weight allowance when rapidly packing for a trip (yet another imperfect, but not unuseful, metaphor). With enough practice, one can get very good at it. --Pi zero (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Also a good way to put it. Wikipedia has no deadline and Wikinews does. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4444646 [Passed]

Revision 4444646 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 07:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Presumably the authors can tell who did what more easily than I can; see the history of edits during review. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4444646 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 07:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Presumably the authors can tell who did what more easily than I can; see the history of edits during review. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

headline

Shouldn't the headline mention "Iraq"? The lede mentions some sites were in Iraq. The lead template image makes no sense othewise, and the choice of infobox.
•–• 09:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Quite right, it would have been better to mention Iraq in the headline. Not an error as such, thus nothing to correct, but definitely one of those do-better-going-forward things. (Also something to consider in imagining assistant-design.) --Pi zero (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)